Seems to me that the owner has to demonstrate his claim of having a movable mini house.
So move it. Doesn’t have to be far. Just pick it up with a crane and put it somewhere else nearby. Or on the back of a trailer. Or put some wheels on it.
That would prove his claim it is movable and satisfy the council in one go.
The story is presented as an appeal to help the war veteran with PTSD versus nasty council with no sympathy. To me it reads as a dwelling built without council approval and a defense claim it is movable. So demonstrate that claim.
As for order to demolish. No need to do that if it can simply be moved, right?
Portable housing has been around for a very long time. The mining and construction industry has long had accomodation delivered by truck, and moved elsewhere when needed. Likewise schools have long had portable classrooms.
There are kit homes built in a factory and delivered by truck. Bigger ones in multiple sections that just get bolted together. Or unbolted and moved on sometimes.
The council seems quite comfortable with portable housing. So long as it is done in a proper manner.
It may seem reasonable and practical to expect a positive council response. There are Byron Council conditions which include displacement due to flooding of your regular home, and a maximum of 2 years (extended?). Whether a permanent secondary dwelling or moveable, both instances require a successful application to council.
The reporter is raising the example as a solution with significant social relevance. Much depends on interpretation of Byron Council’s regulations in this example. It’s possible there are other facts required to establish the full context of what has been reported.
Whom might the current systems of State/Territory and Council development approvals best serve? There’s room for improvement. What many looking for a home are asking.
